Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brandon_Rimmer_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brandon_Rimmer said:
I suppose we simply have different philosophies of government. If the government can allow certain things that even a small group finds important, and it does not substantially harm the rest of society, I think it is the duty of government to allow it.

But maybe there is harm from allowing gay marriage. You seem to hint at a reason right here:

Is there any evidence that gay marriage erodes the value of the family? What would this evidence look like?

I can imagine maybe divorce rates. Gay marriage has been made legal in some places. Have divorce rates gone up substantially?

As far as I can see, it doesn’t seem as though gay marriage has any affect on the value of the family at all, positive or negative. Two men can marry and start a family, and there is no reason I know of to think that this family has any more or less value than any other (except religious reasons).
Click to expand...
How can two men marry and start a family?:confused:
 
Brandon_Rimmer said:
I suppose we simply have different philosophies of government. If the government can allow certain things that even a small group finds important, and it does not substantially harm the rest of society, I think it is the duty of government to allow it.

But maybe there is harm from allowing gay marriage. You seem to hint at a reason right here:

Is there any evidence that gay marriage erodes the value of the family? What would this evidence look like?

I can imagine maybe divorce rates. Gay marriage has been made legal in some places. Have divorce rates gone up substantially?

As far as I can see, it doesn’t seem as though gay marriage has any affect on the value of the family at all, positive or negative. Two men can marry and start a family, and there is no reason I know of to think that this family has any more or less value than any other (except religious reasons).
Click to expand...
The “duty” of the govt is to follow the constitution. The govt is not giver or taker of rights. They are the protector of rights. Marriage is NOT a right IMO

I never said gay “marriage” erodes anything. That is a standard added by proponents of this issue.
 
Brandon_Rimmer said:
…Is there any evidence that gay marriage erodes the value of the family? What would this evidence look like?
Click to expand...
First of all, an SSM *cannot *generate children, no way, no how. So it does not *add *anything to society which society *should *protect. IOW, there is no *reason *for the law to change to allow the protections of real marriage to people who absolutely cannot generate children by their very nature.

This is why I think that SSM as an issue is related to acceptance of abc–abc creates childless marriages, therefore childless marriages are ok and are equally protected by society, so why shouldn’t the childless SSM get those equal protections?

The problem is that the protections for marriage were based on marriage contributing to a society the very *future *of that society. The two were connected. Once we disconnected them, bang! Why can’t two people of the same sex marry? Why can’t five people of different sexes marry? etc.
I can imagine maybe divorce rates. Gay marriage has been made legal in some places. Have divorce rates gone up substantially?

As far as I can see, it doesn’t seem as though gay marriage has any affect on the value of the family at all, positive or negative. Two men can marry and start a family, and there is no reason I know of to think that this family has any more or less value than any other (except religious reasons).
Click to expand...
The creation of the children in an SSM marriage comes necessarily from outside the marriage, and so SSM families happen only because the state permits it; they do not come about naturally.
 
fix said:
No Catholics are not talking about sacramental marriage. They are talking about marriage which has one definition. This was understood by all rational people until about 15 years ago.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Marriage has had many different definitions over time. Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.* Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
  • Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
  • Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
  • Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
  • Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
  • Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
  • Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
  • Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
  • Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

rossum
 
rossum said:
I disagree. Marriage has had many different definitions over time. Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.* Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
  • Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
  • Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
  • Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
  • Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
  • Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
  • Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
  • Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
  • Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

rossum
Click to expand...
And from the earliest civilizations up till California in 2008, none involving same sex couples.
 
St_Francis said:
First of all, an SSM *cannot *generate children, no way, no how. So it does not *add *anything to society which society *should *protect. IOW, there is no *reason *for the law to change to allow the protections of real marriage to people who absolutely cannot generate children by their very nature.

This is why I think that SSM as an issue is related to acceptance of abc–abc creates childless marriages, therefore childless marriages are ok and are equally protected by society, so why shouldn’t the childless SSM get those equal protections?

The problem is that the protections for marriage were based on marriage contributing to a society the very *future *of that society. The two were connected. Once we disconnected them, bang! Why can’t two people of the same sex marry? Why can’t five people of different sexes marry? etc.

The creation of the children in an SSM marriage comes necessarily from outside the marriage, and so SSM families happen only because the state permits it; they do not come about naturally.
Click to expand...
Its especially fascinating that those in favor of gay “marriage” argue for it by claiming since it doesnt take anything from society or doesnt restrict the right of others then why not pass it. The same could be said for a parent marrying their adult child of either sex. Would a gay “marriage” advocate such a marriage?
 
ignatius777 said:
The “duty” of the govt is to follow the constitution. The govt is not giver or taker of rights. They are the protector of rights. Marriage is NOT a right IMO
Click to expand...
I agree. Marriage a religious thing. But, so long as the government is going to say anything about marriage, it seems like it should be the most open about the concept as it can be, so long as it does no harm.

Better if the government doesn’t say anything about marriage. After all, marriage has a strong religious dimension, some religions support gay marriage, and so what place is it for congress to decide about the matter one way or the other?

If gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone, why doesn’t the government just allow it?
 
Brandon_Rimmer said:
What if another religion pops up and wants to treat marriage as something different than it used to be? What non-religious argument is there to restrict them from redefining the word?
Click to expand...
Which religion wants to impose some sectarian definition?

The Church is speaking for what is natural, not what is revealed.
 
triumphguy said:
How can two men marry and start a family?:confused:
Click to expand...
They go to their local Unitarian or friendly Episcopalian Church, tell the pastor ‘we’d like to get married’. Then they go to the state office, request a marriage license, have a wedding at the church, sign the license. The details may differ depending on the state, but this is probably close to the process in New York and Massachusetts.

As for starting a family, married people are a family. And as for children, there are many options, including adoption.
 
fix said:
Which religion wants to impose some sectarian definition?
Click to expand...
Some synagogues, the Unitarians, some Episcopalian congregations, the United Church of Christ.

Many of these communities already marry gays; sometimes the State recognises the marriage, and sometimes not. Depends on the State.
 
rossum said:
I disagree. Marriage has had many different definitions over time. Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.* Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
  • Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
  • Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
  • Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
  • Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
  • Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
  • Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
  • Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
  • Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

rossum
Click to expand...
One man and one woman has always been the standard despite aberrations by some.

In the last 200 years in the USA, as one specific example, when has marriage been anything else? In particular when has marriage been between same sex persons?
 
Brandon_Rimmer said:
Maybe this change is a welcome one!
Click to expand...
It seems to be a welcome one for many, but it is a hinge point marking the end of the family (mom, dad, kids) as the building block of civilization. With the basic building block in grave disrepair, as it already has been for some decades now beginning with the widespread acceptance of contraception,) societal devolution is inevitable.

I suspect that even that societal devolution will be welcomed by many as an increase in freedom, at least until the final collapse.
 
JimG said:
It seems to be a welcome one for many, but it is a hinge point marking the end of the family (mom, dad, kids) as the building block of civilization. With the basic building block in grave disrepair, as it already has been for some decades now beginning with the widespread acceptance of contraception,) societal devolution is inevitable.

I suspect that even that societal devolution will be welcomed by many as an increase in freedom, at least until the final collapse.
Click to expand...
What do you think this final collapse will look like?

How does allowing ‘dad, dad, kids’ as an instance of family end the family? What does it do to ‘mom, dad, kids’?
 
Brandon_Rimmer said:
I agree. Marriage a religious thing. But, so long as the government is going to say anything about marriage, it seems like it should be the most open about the concept as it can be, so long as it does no harm.

Better if the government doesn’t say anything about marriage. After all, marriage has a strong religious dimension, some religions support gay marriage, and so what place is it for congress to decide about the matter one way or the other?

If gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone, why doesn’t the government just allow it?
Click to expand...
No govt has a very good reason to support OMOW marriage. Not as a religious entity but as a civil one. Encouraging people to “marry” from a civil persepctive makes perfect sense. New citizens necessary to perpetuate the society are a product of OMOW marriages. And in order to avoid the govt having to dorectly care for all those new citizens they encourage marriage since who better to care for those new citizens then the 2 people who created them.

Adult incestous marriage doesnt hurt anyone either and adds nothing to society. Are you supporting that?
 
ignatius777 said:
No govt has a very good reason to support OMOW marriage. Not as a religious entity but as a civil one. Encouraging people to “marry” from a civil persepctive makes perfect sense. New citizens necessary to perpetuate the society are a product of OMOW marriages. And in order to avoid the govt having to dorectly care for all those new citizens they encourage marriage since who better to care for those new citizens then the 2 people who created them.
Click to expand...
Sure. But I don’t see how supporting gay marriage is going to have any significant impact on straight marriage. How would it?
Adult incestous marriage doesnt hurt anyone either and adds nothing to society. Are you supporting that?
Click to expand...
There would have to be greater limitations to this, because of genetic issues (in other words, unless incorporated carefully, this may cause harm). However, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about the idea. It’s even in the Bible!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top